NCAA Football 12 Blog - Custom Conferences

[cbuhl79]

A few people have commented about how the game will fill in with FCS games if you make your conference really small. I actually worked on this feature, and I can tell you exactly why we did it this way.

Originally, we were going to require Conferences to be 8 teams or larger, simply because there are real-life NCAA rules that force conferences to stay at that size. However, as it became clear that the WAC was going to go below 8 (current FBS) teams, and was going to replace those teams with FCS teams, we decided to lower the limit, and simply replace conference games with FCS "placeholder" games. Obviously, when those teams elevate to FBS status, we will add them as real teams, but that wasn't possible this for us this year.

Incidentally, we actually lowered the number several times, as the WAC kept losing members, we finally settled on 4 :-P

Also, in case you're curious, you can lower the Independents to 1 team. We had to leave 1 team in there because our game doesn't know how to handle an "empty" conference, and we didn't have time to fix that :-(

[TheRealCar10ck]

Quote: Originally Posted by zmcman1

I'm just assuming it is in the game since it hosts the Cotton Bowl. as far as the spreadsheet, type "Google Documents" into Google. You can make/save spreadsheets there.

Slidell, LA? My whole family, literally my WHOLE family lives there. Big Ups to Slidell.

[moylan1234]

Quote: Originally Posted by cbuhl79

A few people have commented about how the game will fill in with FCS games if you make your conference really small. I actually worked on this feature, and I can tell you exactly why we did it this way. Originally, we were going to require Conferences to be 8 teams or larger, simply because there are real-life NCAA rules that force conferences to stay at that size. However, as it became clear that the WAC was going to go below 8 (current FBS) teams, and was going to replace those teams with FCS teams, we decided to lower the limit, and simply replace conference games with FCS "placeholder" games. Obviously, when those teams elevate to FBS status, we will add them as real teams, but that wasn't possible this for us this year. Incidentally, we actually lowered the number several times, as the WAC kept losing members, we finally settled on 4 :-P Also, in case you're curious, you can lower the Independents to 1 team. We had to leave 1 team in there because our game doesn't know how to handle an "empty" conference, and we didn't have time to fix that :-(

thanks cbuhl, any word on whether or not conference patches on jerseys will update as well?

[majesty95]

Quote: Originally Posted by Da Hype Iz Real

I think those factors would stay the relatively the same , 6-6 and better teams go the bowls and outside of conference and rivalries game schedules tend to be random. I think the problem would probably be rosters and recruits. I have no idea how many recruits are generated but with each team having 25 scholarships a wild guess of mines is 25 players created per school and at 130-140 schools that would be 250-500 more players in the dynasty.

Not if you added new conferences. Think of it like a Monopoly board. All of the squares are even on each side and fit nicely. If you wanted to add a new property, you would need to add four (one for each side). Then you would need to decide to either shrink each of the other squares or increase the size of the board. Either that or you have one side that looks different than the others.

Relating that to coding, you would have to go in and code new conferences or change how the AI looks at the conferences and relating schedules. You would have to do that in a way that not only appeases the fans and makes logical sense but do it in a way that does not destabilize the current "board" creating bugs and crashes.

You would have to adjust the scheduling logic since there will be more teams and more non-conferene games to schedule. You would have to adjust the bowl selection because there will be more "qualified" teams so you have to decide how to decide ties or consider adding a feature to allow users to require 7 wins for bowl eligibility. You would also need to look at poll logic since there are more teams and the wins and losses would be weighted differently.

I'm not saying it is not possible it is just that a lot of work would have to go into making it right and I don't think they had the time to dedicate to that with all of the stuff they added this year. That could be something they are looking to add next year with a broader bade to work from now that the conferences have been made fluid.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is that the series is limited to the Xbox. Even though the Blu-Ray can handle 3x as much data as the 360, the series will always be limited by what the weaker system can handle.

[zmcman1]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheRealCar10ck

Slidell, LA? My whole family, literally my WHOLE family lives there. Big Ups to Slidell.

Yeah. Pretty crappy city lol

[dochalladay32]

Quote: Originally Posted by majesty95

The problem with the bowl tie-ins is the matchups and amount of bowl bids. If you were to make the old SWC as C-USA your non-BCS conf champ would play either the the Big East's #5 or SEC's #8 or 9. If you wanted to make the SWC in the Sun Belt you would only get one bowl bid and that would be against C-USA's #4 team. I really liked this idea until I started trying to figure out conferences. With 16-team super conferences you'll get 2 and 3-star programs in the MWC, WAC, C-USA and MAC getting auto bids while potentially better teams miss out on bids. On the other end, trying to re-create a former conference landscape from the 70's or 80's leaves you putting a traditionally good conference in poor bowls matched up with inferior opponents and/or giving up bowl bids. Unless you can change non-BCS bowl affiliations (which they haven't announced), this feature is really pointless accept for changing real world affiliations as they happen. That would be fine if they marketed it that way. However, they are marketing you being able to re-create the old Big 8 or SWC, which you can, just at the expense of bowl prestige for your teams...

The matchups are going to suck, but just hold up for a bit. In my classic setups, the SWC is either C-USA or the Big 12. The C-USA gets 5+2 bids already. It's not like they won't go to bowl games. And SWC teams have been selected to play in the Liberty Bowl before. Maybe not the champion, but someone still went occasionally. Also like was said, the bowl game is just a game. Half of these didn't even exist 20 years ago so just go with them. It is going to suck in the years after '91, but prior to that, I have the SWC in the Big 12 and put the Big Eight in the Big East. The SEC is also down to 10 teams so I highly doubt they produce 8 bowl eligible teams, or at least that is my hope.

Which this gets me to your next point. If you are making 16 team super conferences, your other conferences are going to be small. Let's say you have 6 16-team conferences. That will leave you with 5 4-5 team conferences. This is probably the extreme, but you are going to see 1, maybe 2 teams each from those small conferences. Who cares if a couple of them squeak through. 5-6 North Texas has also gone to a bowl game as a conference champion. This will open up a ton of at larges to satisfy the teams from the 16-team conferences. The same thing will happen in classic matchups. I've already taken it into consideration in my setups. I already mentioned the Big Eight and SWC. The other conferences were all smaller and did not send many teams to bowl games, like the Big West, MVC, Southland. They are also small conferences, 5-8 teams. No conference will ever use all of their automatic bids. The Big East (Eight) has 6 bids and 8 teams. The Mountain West (PCCA/Big West) has 5 bids and 5-6 teams for the most part. They won't use them all. The SEC has 9 bids and 10 teams. This should open up a ton of bids for independents, or at least that is my hope.

And is bowl prestige even factored in? If you do it the way I do, you lose little prestige. The SWC and Big Eight in the Big 12 and Big East? Seems fine. MVC, Big West, Southland in C-USA, Mountain West, and Sun Belt? And the C-USA and Sun Belt are only used if enough conferences existed, which isn't always true.

If you do go back to pre-1991. Do not send the Big 12 to the BCS and you'll always go to the cotton bowl unless you make the BCS title game. Send the SEC to the Sugar against an at large. Rose is obviously Pac 12 vs. Big Ten. Send the Big East to the Orange to get a Big Eight team in. Leave the rest as at larges. Fiesta took teams from all over the place. Leave 4 at larges and this hopefully gets several independents into the BCS.

So yes, being able to edit all bowl bids is ideal, which means more work. But I'd like to think my setups would accomplish what it is supposed to. Only thing I'd have to check is if my non-1A conferences do what they are supposed to.

[Microsoft_Works]

I guess I'm just going to scrap the 1991 setup because I can't figure out a good way to fit 7 "major" conferences into the current 6 BCS conferences + 1.

I'll probably go back to 1990 and have the Big Eight in the Big East and then Miami, VT, etc. will still be independents.

[dochalladay32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Microsoft_Works

I guess I'm just going to scrap the 1991 setup because I can't figure out a good way to fit 7 "major" conferences into the current 6 BCS conferences + 1. I'll probably go back to 1990 and have the Big Eight in the Big East and then Miami, VT, etc. will still be independents.

1991-1995 is the only part of mine I'm not completely happy with. I have the SWC champion in C-USA only because it gives the most bowl bids (5+2 contingency if the game recognizes them). The SWC wasn't a major conference any in the sense that it's champion went to the Cotton Bowl. I'm almost tempted to keep the SWC in the Big 12 like I have prior to 1991, do not give them a BCS bid so they go to the cotton, and put the Big Eight in C-USA and send their champion to the Orange like always. As a matter of fact, I will do that. Thanks for the idea!